Dear RN list (and others), I wish I knew how to contact Karen Armstrong, author of the article I sent out on Jan. 15, and which has solicited some very interesting replies. If anyone is able to send her the following comments, please do so. I think the most fundamental criticism comes from Paul Isaacs: From: Paul Isaacs <•••@••.•••> To: Jan Slakov <•••@••.•••>, •••@••.••• Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 00:34:20 -0500 Subject: Re: K. Armstrong: the roots of terrorism On 15-Jan-02, Jan Slakov [sent out]: { snip } > We cannot understand the present crisis without taking into > account the painful process of modernization. In the 16th century, > the countries of Western Europe and, later, the American colonies > embarked on what historians have called "the Great Western > Transformation." Until then, all the great societies were based upon > a surplus of agriculture and so were economically vulnerable; they > soon found that they had grown beyond their limited resources. The > new Western societies, though, were based upon technology and > the constant reinvestment of capital. They found that they could > reproduce their resources indefinitely, and so could afford to > experiment with new ideas and products. In Western cultures > today, when a new kind of computer is invented, all the old office > equipment is thrown out. In the old agrarian societies, any project > that required such frequent change of the basic infrastructure was > likely to be shelved. Originality was not encouraged; instead people > had to concentrate on preserving what had been achieved. Hello Jan, I am afraid that the above pararaph is terribly unsound. The "new Western societies" were based on the use of energy and the continuous expansion of capital. Technology is not a "base". It is, as its name implies, the application of a collection of techniques. The Oxford Concise defines it as "the study or use of the mechanical arts and applied sciences". "They found that they could reproduce their resources indefinitely". This statement is, unfortunately, profoundly false. We are riding in fabulous technological car that has one tank of oil. When it is gone - even the most wild eyed optimists don't give it more than 50 years, more prudent estimates are that demand will exceed global supply around 2005 - there is no place to refill. "Modern" society has a life expectancy that is less than that of a twenty year old. No agrarian society of the past was ever as "economically vulnerable" as we are today. Our real "base" - oil energy - is about to disappear. Capital was not simply "constantly reinvested". It was constantly expanded. To this day we think it is a calamity if the "economy" does not "grow". "Instead people had to concentrate on preserving what had been achieved". The "process of modernization" has relieved us of any sense of need to preserve anything. It is a fatal mistake. For everyone. We are not "modern" in any sense of the term. We have been aware of the need for sustainability for at least 25 years now but we continue to wantonly consume the planet's future. We are primitive barbarians. Vandals. Vikings pillaging tomorrow's necessities from today's children. There is no condemnation of "us" that is too harsh. It is a truth that we can not seem to bring ourselves to either admit or learn. { snip } Regards, Paul Isaacs ************************************************************** comment from Jan: "no condemnation of "us" that is too harsh? I do not go that far, but I agree that Karen Armstrong's article fails to aknowledge how fundamentally unsound "modern" society and its capitalist economy are. To add to the things Paul points out, I note that she speaks of "developing countries... making their own painful journey to modernity". I decided some years ago not to refer to "Third World" countries as "developing", even if many of their leaders and activists do, because this presumes that they should develop towards a Western ("developed") type of society, whereas, in many ways, the Western world could learn from societies of the "Third World" about living sustainably, basic respect for each other and the earth, etc. On the other hand, I cannot bring myself to see human evolution as a dead end. While I too deplore the "development" which sees it as "innovative" to be throwing computers out with each new wave of technology, I think the development of democratic ideals is of real value. I notice that people are most able to do positive work when they act from a base of appreciation of their own culture, rather than from a sense of inadequacy. ... But can words adequately express what I mean? Good heavens, we are worse than "inadequate"! Certain aspects of our Western culture are appalling; it is hard to feel hopeful when one looks at the reality of what our terribly powerful culture is doing. Maybe it helps that I know people who, to varying degrees, are succeeding in living with minimal reliance on non-renewable resources in a way that does not require renouncing their "Western" heritage. And I know others who use more non-renewable resources, but who are inspiring in their ability to promote ideals of democracy and tolerance in the world around them. Many such people are on this list. I see the development of my own values and thinking as something that is nurtured from our exchange. (And it seems to me that Karen Armstrong's thinking would benefit from some of this dialogue too.) To close, I'll include two other comments below. ***************************************************************** A friend who lived in Japan for 14 years, has been married to a Japanese woman for 19 years, and has studied Japan, its culture and history for many years wrote: Thanks for the article by Karen Armstrong. It states well what I have been thinking. However, I was surprised that she did not mention, in more detail, the Palestinian desire for statehood. Instead, she tended to concentrate on resentment to past colonialism. But the following statement about Japan is completely erroneous. If you have a chance, you should ask her to remove her reference to Japan. It makes her look uninformed, even though I am sure she is not, when it comes to other parts of her article. I am referring to this passage: > When Europeans began to explore the rest of the globe at the > beginning of the Great Western Transformation, they found an > Islamic presence almost everywhere they went: in the Middle East, > India, Persia, Southeast Asia, China, and Japan. Japan had no Muslims, and has never had, except since the 1970s when some refugees came from places like Iran. *********************************************************** From: "Teresa Hawkes" <•••@••.•••> To: •••@••.••• Subject: RE: rn:K. Armstrong: the roots of terrorism Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 11:15:42 -0600 This is a very sane posting. I am tired of posts that sound, quite frankly, like a over-reactive spy novel in which a few sinister agents of evil manipulate the populations of the world like puppets. Quite frankly, chaos theory alone should show us all why this is in no way possible, which is not to say that there aren't people who are greedy and evil in positions to instigate actions incurring harm to many. Armstrong's assessment is balanced. It shows us how all of us have contributed to the current state of affairs! Thank you for sharing this! Do you have contact information for Karen Armstrong. I would like to reprint this on my Ezine, The Oracular Tree. Blessings, Teresa Hawkes Publisher The Oracular Tree http://www.oraculartree.com Establish the habit of reverence Jan's comment: Teresa's posting resonated with me, for I too feel a deep need for reverence, ESPECIALLY in light of how terrible things are. ... Another problem I have with Karen's Armstrong's posting is the lack of any hint of suspicion that people high up in the U$ administration were involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. This seems to me the most likely explanation for what has happened, what is happening; to believe this as I do, and not fall into cynicism requires some pretty heavy "doses" of reverence. all the best, Jan